A miracle is an event that is not naturally possible. That does not mean it is
necessarily impossible. There could be a power greater than nature such a god
that can do it.

A default position is a stance you take on something that you hold on to unless
it is proven incorrect. When somebody is accused of a crime, the default is,
"Innocent until proven guilty".

A miracle claim is made. Is it a lie? Is it a
misperceived event? Is it a faulty memory of an event? Is it a misperception
caused by natural forces that science and nothing else can detect? Is it a
supernatural misperception? Is it a psychic one? The odds are stacked against
the account being right. The reality is that a miracle is improbable. It is one
possibility against several. To say you believe in the miracle is to hide
the fact that it is only a random opinion you have got.

An opinion is very close to a guess or an assumption.

The person who says a miracle happened needs to be considered erring or
fraudulent until its proven that he is telling the truth. For believers, the
investigator who says a miracle might not have happened needs to be considered
erring or fraudulent until its proven that he is telling the truth. If all
religions had that attitude towards investigators there would be no need for
missionaries for they wouldn't attract any converts. And the rift between
religion and science would be total. The believer's stance is not remotely fair
and is outright dangerous. It is tragic when religion seeks money and devotion
from the poor and the uneducated.

With miracles we have to choose one of the following as a default position. We
always need a default position. Once you leave the default position you take on
the burden of proof. That means you get the obligation to justify the change of
position.

1 Miracles are impossible.
2 Miracles are possible but never happened.
3 Miracles are possible and may have happened.
4 Miracles are possible and have happened.

Some add in "We don't know" as a default. This would imply that if God does
miracles he is wasting his time. God would not do miracles if we should take
that as our default. This is really the same as 2.

4 choices. 1 and 2 and 3 do not encourage belief in miracles. 3 only says we may
think miracle may have happened not that they have.

It is three options against belief and one option - 4 - for them.

This alone shows that a miracle is very unlikely. Our default view should be
some form of scepticism.

To say that a miracle is intended to call us to believe in a religion's message
is just stupid. Why would God do a miracle to show us the truth or even to show
off when we can only believe if we choose an unlikely default position?

Miracles by definition are very unlikely. If they are not then it follows that
you can assume that you may not lock the house for it will magically lock
itself. This is why 1 (Miracles are impossible) even it is dogmatic is not as
dogmatic as saying miracles have happened. A dogma is an idea you hold on to
regardless of how good the evidence against it is. The less dogma the better.
The more dogma the more bigoted the believer is.

It is less dogmatic to believe miracles never happen than that they do.

Is an unverified but believable testimony against an apparition enough to
justify our unbelief or to leave us undecided? It would be enough to justify
being undecided.

The burden of proof is on the claimant of the miracle. If the claimant is very
stupid then we cannot say for sure if they experienced a miracle from God. That
eliminates the apparitions of Mary to Bernadette of Lourdes.

Some say, "There can be a lot of objections to any claim. Perhaps we should
believe that miracle claims are true because if we wait until every objection is
answered we will end up believing nothing?" The answer is that if we do that we
will be credulous and running after the supernatural all the time. We will be
fools. In normal things you can't wait until every objection is answered. It
would be great if you could but you cannot.